The point is if he had Ebola Zaire, given the time frame there would be no way a miracle 'serum' could have saved him. His internal organs would have been liquified.

If that were true, the survival rate would be zero. I have not seen any evidence that he had reached the hemorrhagic stage. They reported he had a rash and had trouble breathing, not that he was bleeding out of his orifices.

"While Galileo was a rebel, not all rebels are Galileo." - Norman Levitt, mathematician and critic of anti-science postmodernism

If that were true, the survival rate would be zero. I have not seen any evidence that he had reached the hemorrhagic stage. They reported he had a rash and had trouble breathing, not that he was bleeding out of his orifices.

How is that some happen to survive? They actually do and without a magic potion too! They happen to survive and actually donate blood. So their bodies don't fight it naturally?

As I did say, last I checked blood is still natural. I do feel the PRO vaccine side has a issue with natural/naturally and prefers vaccines over it all the times they can. Apparently they take issue with doctors saying it too-go figure!

Quote:

Originally Posted by teacozy

Oh, look. Isn't this ironic.

A patient is being tested for Ebola in NYC as we speak. The person is in isolation.

Ironic? I read that can't happen! - It can't be ebola!

Quote:

Originally Posted by teacozy

Ebola outbreaks occur primarily in remote villages in Central and West Africa. People that live in remote villages are not likely to get on airplanes and travel to New York for work or vacation.

That sounded elitist at the time and still does-IMO Given all the news reports I quoted earlier that seems to resonate along the lines of the reasoning behind not funding a vaccine - the poorest communities on the planet / curing a disease that surfaces sporadically in low-income, African countries

Quote:

Originally Posted by teacozy

A person who is at that stage of ebola can be literally bleeding out of their nose, ears, eyes, mouth and rectum. Do you really think that person would be sitting on a plane?!

I think much of the objection is to the "business/economical" part of the argument. I suspect that there'd be fewer objections if the reasoning was something like: ebola is a particularly difficult disease to study, and the resources that would be necessary to tackle it fully would have more impact if they were put towards reasearch into malaria, and various other tropical diseases that are easier to study and affect more people.

That is essentially what they are saying, albeit in a less diplomatic way. Money is not unlimited. It is better spent elsewhere, simple as that.

"While Galileo was a rebel, not all rebels are Galileo." - Norman Levitt, mathematician and critic of anti-science postmodernism

Oh, and Brantly was the first person ever to be given the 'serum' until that point it had only been tested on monkeys within 48 hours of symptoms. Brantly was symptomatic for nine days before getting the 'serum'.

How is that some happen to survive? They actually do and without a magic potion too! They happen to survive and actually donate blood. So their bodies don't fight it naturally?

As I did say, last I checked blood is still natural. I do feel the PRO vaccine side has a issue with natural/naturally and prefers vaccines over it all the times they can. Apparently they take issue with doctors saying it too-go figure!

Ironic? I read that can't happen! - It can't be ebola!

That sounded elitist at the time and still does-IMO Given all the news reports I quoted earlier that seems to resinate along the lines of the reasoning behind not funding a vaccine - the poorest communities on the planet / curing a disease that surfaces sporadically in low-income, African countries

It'd be nice if you would put quotes in context. Someone had argued that a person in the hemorrhagic stage of ebola might get on a plane, and I made the point that a person in that stage would not be traveling on a commercial airliner. They would be on the brink of death and vomiting their organs.

The incubation period can be as long as 20 days for Ebola, but unlike most other contagious VPDs, it isn't contagious until a person starts showing symptoms, making it much easier to contain. It is also not airborne and not very easily spread on a population level.

Oh, and Brantly was the first person ever to be given the 'serum' until that point it had only been tested on monkeys within 48 hours of symptoms. Brantly was symptomatic for nine days before getting the 'serum'.

Hmmmmm.......

I'm not understanding the conspiracy, so fill me in. People survive ebola, so the claim that there is no way a person could survive once they hit day 9 is clearly not true.

Even if hypothetically a person could not survive once they hit day 9, the conspiracy still makes no sense. Wouldn't they just lie about when he started showing symptoms? I mean according to your source, they lied about his test results so why not lie about other things to make the story more plausible? Further, what is the point in lying about his having ebola anyway? This is a disease that does not effect very many people. Do you think they are going to be banking on poor Africans paying them millions for the serum? I do not even understand what the conspiracy is supposed to be at this point.

Then again, I'm not one for conspiracy theories in general

"While Galileo was a rebel, not all rebels are Galileo." - Norman Levitt, mathematician and critic of anti-science postmodernism

It'd be nice if you would put quotes in context. Someone had argued that a person in the hemorrhagic stage of ebola might get on a plane, and I made the point that a person in that stage would not be traveling on a commercial airliner. They would be on the brink of death and vomiting their organs.

The incubation period can be as long as 20 days for Ebola, but unlike most other contagious VPDs, it isn't contagious until a person starts showing symptoms, making it much easier to contain. It is also not airborne and not very easily spread on a population level.

That is essentially what they are saying, albeit in a less diplomatic way. Money is not unlimited. It is better spent elsewhere, simple as that.

We don't know that, though.

All we have is what they said, and this is a quote from the NBC link.

"“I don’t see why anybody except the U.S. government would get involved in developing these kinds of countermeasures,” said Dr. Sina Bavari of the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID) in Frederick, Maryland. “There is no market in it.”

Bolding mine. I am not sure it is better spent elsewhere…and that is a problem. Oh, it might be the case that developing a vaccine for Ebola is not a priotity (despite its current outbreak - although I do maintain this is unlikely to fly in a wealthy country) - but what about other neglected tropical diseases and diseases that affect the global poor?

"Findings
Of the 850 new therapeutic products registered in 2000—11, 37 (4%) were indicated for neglected diseases, comprising 25 products with a new indication or formulation and eight vaccines or biological products. Only four new chemical entities were approved for neglected diseases (three for malaria, one for diarrhoeal disease), accounting for 1% of the 336 new chemical entities approved during the study period. Of 148 445 clinical trials registered in Dec 31, 2011, only 2016 (1%) were for neglected diseases.
Interpretation
Our findings show a persistent insufficiency in drug and vaccine development for neglected diseases. Nevertheless, these and other data show a slight improvement during the past 12 years in new therapeutics development and registration. However, for many neglected diseases, new therapeutic products urgently need to be developed and delivered to improve control and potentially achieve elimination."

I thought your point was that you don't think they aren't making a vaccine because it's a disease that only effects low income countries. But if that were true, they wouldn't have spent millions developing and testing a malaria vaccine which is another disease that mainly effects low income countries.

"While Galileo was a rebel, not all rebels are Galileo." - Norman Levitt, mathematician and critic of anti-science postmodernism

I'm not understanding the conspiracy, so fill me in. People survive ebola, so the claim that there is no way a person could survive once they hit day 9 is clearly not true.

Even if hypothetically a person could not survive once they hit day 9, the conspiracy still makes no sense. Wouldn't they just lie about when he started showing symptoms? I mean according to your source, they lied about his test results so why not lie about other things to make the story more plausible? Further, what is the point in lying about his having ebola anyway? This is a disease that does not effect very many people. Do you think they are going to be banking on poor Africans paying them millions for the serum? I do not even understand what the conspiracy is supposed to be at this point.

Then again, I'm not one for conspiracy theories in general

First, my source (which you didn't read) did not say 'they' lied about his test results, you were the one that mentioned test results. All the author of the article said, after almost 20 years of a morbid fascination with studying Ebola, that it is impossible for Dr Brantly to have had Ebola Zaire given the time line of his illness and his miraculous return to health after a dose of miracle serum. As to why 'they' would want to deceive the general public, only they know that.

Forbes also looked at the study I just posted. A few cherry picked lines:

"The question, however, is not how much Big Pharma is doing, but how much of the problem of neglected diseases should it own? Despite the fact that AstraZeneca, GSK, Merck and Novartis all have R&D centers established solely to work on neglected diseases, this will not come close to meeting the expectations of Lancet co-author, Jean-Herve Bradol of the Medecins Sans Frontieres:

“Our patients are still waiting for true medical breakthroughs. People are still suffering and dying from these diseases, and healthcare providers must be able to offer all patients – irrespective of their ability to pay – the best treatment possible. Only then will we say that we have made progress.”

and

"So, is there no hope for doing more to treat neglected diseases? Actually, I think that the private sector could be doing more. In a recent post, I described the efforts that academic institutions are making in drug discovery. Perhaps the bulk of these efforts should be applied to neglected diseases research rather than the diseases, such as depression or diabetes, being approached by the biopharmaceutical industry . If successful, these universities could then partner with non-profits like the Gates Foundation to secure the funding to carry out drug development and clinical trials. This might be a more suitable mandate for non-profit academic institutions than being a source of new clinical candidates for pharma.

But to expect Big Pharma to do a significant amount more R&D in neglected diseases is not economically feasible in the current environment. It is going to take novel paradigms to generate greater progress in this field."

Ignoring the fact I dislike Forbes, I thought this article made some sense.

The bottom line of pharmaceutical companies is the bottom line. I do not see that changing. That is not how they are set up. Outside the box thinking on neglected diseases is the way to go, as expecting pharmaceutical companies (who are in it to make $$) to do it is not going to work. They (Big Pharm) do not have a good track record on creating drugs that are of most benefit to those living in extreme global poverty.

I thought your point was that you don't think they aren't making a vaccine because it's a disease that only effects low income countries. But if that were true, they wouldn't have spent millions developing and testing a malaria vaccine which is another disease that mainly effects low income countries.

You do know the funding source for the malaria vaccine don't you? That amount of money is NOT being given to BIG Pharma for Ebola. I would say that plays a substantial role in the matter.

The bottom line of pharmaceutical companies is the bottom line. I do not see that changing. That is not how they are set up. Outside the box thinking on neglected diseases is the way to go, as expecting pharmaceutical companies (who are in it to make $$) to do it is not going to work. They (Big Pharm) do not have a good track record on creating drugs that are of most benefit to those living in extreme global poverty.

Some say (privately) that someone might hope to buy a Nobel Peace prize funding such endeavors - maybe that is what makes one thing "fundable" and one thing not! Mass help always looks better.

I'm not understanding the conspiracy, so fill me in. People survive ebola, so the claim that there is no way a person could survive once they hit day 9 is clearly not true.

To address this point, those that survive Ebola generally do not reach the hemorrhagic stage, Brantly was nine days in which as your source said was when the victim would start bleeding out and media reports state he was close to death. Then he is given this miraculous serum, and within an hour he is up and able to shower the next day.

From the article you didn't read:

Quote:

I will tell you right now, without a single hesitation or shadow of a doubt: Brantly did/does NOT have Ebola. The very fact that the second patient hasn't even been picked up yet by the emergency medical evacuation plane points a very large finger at the fact that obviously they don't consider these evacuations an "Emergency".

If this was actually a case of Ebola Zaire, both of the patients would be dead already. Zaire has the shortest gestational period, is the fastest killer and has the highest mortality rate of all the Hemorrhagic Fevers. Yes, there is a percentage of patients that survive Ebola Zaire, but in those that do, the infection/symptoms do not escalate beyond the fever and vomiting/diarrhea stage. This is a very well established medical fact.

To address this point, those that survive Ebola generally do not reach the hemorrhagic stage, Brantly was nine days in which as your source said was when the victim would start bleeding out and media reports state he was close to death. Then he is given this miraculous serum, and within an hour he is up and able to shower the next day.

From the article you didn't read:

The link said *usually* in the second week, which means not always and also means up until day 14.

"A person infected with Ebola won’t realise the deadly disease is lurking in their body for up to three weeks. When it hits, the onset is sudden and harsh. A fever, crippling headaches and muscle aches are the first sign that something is wrong. But the fact the virus mimics the symptoms of a common cold means it is difficult to spot. Within a few days, the virus causes a condition known as disseminated intravascular coagulation.

It causes blood clots and haemorrhaging. In Ebola victims, the clots affect their liver, spleen, brain and other internal organs, forcing capillaries to bleed into the surrounding tissue. Nausea, vomiting and diarrhoea with blood and mucus, conjunctivitis and a sore throat follow. A rash is then likely to appear on the torso, spreading quickly to the limbs and head.

The patient will then endure spontaneous bleeding from their ears, eyes, mouth and other orifices as well as any breaks in the skin. Internally they will suffer bleeding in the gastrointestinal tract and internal organs, as the virus pierces veins and blood vessels. Death is usually brought on by haemorrhaging, shock or renal failure and typically occurs between eight and 17 days after a person first falls ill."

Looks like he got the serum just in time.

Once again, I have not read or heard of any evidence that he has reached this stage at all. They reported a rash and labored breathing. Do you have any evidence that he got to this stage? Forgive me for not blindly trusting a random blogger you found who has no medical credentials or experience in treating ebola that I am aware of.

This is so silly. Why on earth would they make up when he first noticed symptoms? Why would they lie about his test results? Why would they just make up that he has ebola? You think they want to isolate and treat him in hazmat suites just for fun? I mean honestly now! You are not doing yourself any favors with these ridiculous conspiracy theories.

Yes you are correct, but he was still supposedly at death's door prior to the first dose from which he revived in an hour and was able to shower the next day. Amazing stuff that serum.

Actually he was never said to be at death's door. Initially he told Drs that his colleague should receive the first available dose since he felt he was young and in better condition to wait. Unfortunately his condition deteriorated and a last minute decision was made to give him the first dose. He did make a comment that he felt he was going to die but he had not entered the hemorrhagic phase of the illness so the serum was administered.

He wasn't revived within an hour, but 22 hours after administration of the initial dose he felt well enough for a shower and shortly after that he began his journey back to the US.

He was also seen exiting the ambulance in Atlanta under his own power but the footage shows that he was indeed unsteady on his feet and he was helped into the hospital by another individual.

If the two patients are improving after the treatment, "that's fantastic," he says – but it may be difficult to determine whether the treatment made the difference. "There are a reasonable number of people who live even without treatment. … The longer you can keep someone alive, the more likely your immune system kicks in and fights this off."

"We must...tackle the scandal of the unwillingness of the pharmaceutical industry to invest in research to produce treatments and vaccines, something they refuse to do because the numbers involved are, in their terms, so small and don't justify the investment,” Dr Ashton told The Independent on Sunday.
“This is the moral bankruptcy of capitalism acting in the absence of an ethical and social framework.”

Strong words, but I essentially agree.

Screaming at non-vaxxers from wealthy countires for refusing to give their children the chicken pox or rotavirus vaccine is a load of crap when so many diseases are neglected on a worldwide scale, and so many die. Priorities, folks!

As an aside, I did not quite grasp the whole "serum" talk yesterday. I do not watch the news very often. For anyone else in the dark, here is the story:

"The two American doctors who have caught Ebola have been treated with a new "secret serum" which could potentially save their lives. The revelation comes as another doctor, who treated the man who died in Africa's most populous city, Lagos, fell ill with the disease...While there remains no cure for the virus, a representative from the US National Institutes of Health contacted Samaritan's Purse – the charity they worked for in Liberia – and offered the experimental treatment, known as ZMapp.
The treatment is said to work by preventing the virus from entering and infecting new cells."

I really do not know how I feel about this. Only enough serum for two people - and they gave it to the 2 Americans? Why them? There are certainly other good candidates. Reminds of when the Titanic was sinking and the upper class got on the lifeboats first.

I really do not know how I feel about this. Only enough serum for two people - and they gave it to the 2 Americans? Why them? There are certainly other good candidates. Reminds of when the Titanic was sinking and the upper class got on the lifeboats first.

Have you read what the rest of the world thinks of "them" just getting it???? That is a WHOLE other issue in how that is playing out!

Have you read what the rest of the world thinks of "them" just getting it???? That is a WHOLE other issue in how that is playing out!

I tried but my google-fu skills were failing me. I did google "ethics, serum and ebola" or some such thing - but all I got was the ethics of using an experimental drug. I am more interested in the ethics of picking and choosing who gets medicine.

I tried but my google-fu skills were failing me. I did google "ethics, serum and ebola" or some such thing - but all I got was the ethics of using an experimental drug. I am more interested in the ethics of picking and choosing who gets medicine.

Only a few state health departments have established ethical guidelines for rationing medical care in certain situations. Massachusetts is not one of them, offering no guidance for how hospitals should distribute immunizations or treatments in short supply, according to the Department of Public Health.

“Imagine we have a pandemic in Boston with proven treatments that are in limited supply,” said Dr. Robert Truog, director of Harvard Medical School’s Center for Bioethics. “We have not adequately thought through how to make the allocation decision of who will get it and who will not.”

Yet Ebola is not a priority for the not-for-profit Drugs for Neglected Diseases Initiative, which works with the World Health Organisation and others to incentivise and encourage pharmaceutical companies to research and develop treatments. It affects far fewer people than parasitic diseases, and the outbreaks, although appalling, are sporadic.

There were protests over the FDA's intervention and calls for the drug to be fast-tracked, since more than 600 people in west Africa had already died. But even if the FDA felt it was a good idea to test the drug on patients in Africa, trials in humans take so long to set up that the current outbreak will probably be over by the time anybody is ready.

“There are survivors of Ebola,” said David Heymann, a professor at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine who has studied Ebola since the first outbreak in 1976. “Is it ethical to provide a drug when you could be causing a risk to those patients who would survive?”

I really do not know how I feel about this. Only enough serum for two people - and they gave it to the 2 Americans? Why them? There are certainly other good candidates. Reminds of when the Titanic was sinking and the upper class got on the lifeboats first.

The only reason we are even having this discussion is because it appears to have worked. Remember it had never been tested on humans and had only been administered to eight monkeys when they agreed to the treatment. It could have made them worse. It was a risk.

I think this is a damned if we do, damned if we don't situation.

If we had given the medication to African people there would have been cries about how unethical it is for Americans to test an experimental serum on vulnerable African children and adults. If it hadn't worked or made them worse people would be asking "Why did you test it on Africans? Why did you not test it on your own Americans that were sick instead?" etc. The fragile trust in that area would be completely gone at that point.

I don't have any issues with the way this was handled. I think it was the right decision given the possible outcomes.

Plus, aren't non vaxxers on this forum outraged with testing vaccines/drugs on people in third world/poor countries? It gets brought up enough that I'm shaking my head at why all of a sudden NOW it's a good idea? Which brings me back to my original point that this was a damned if we do damned if we don't kind of situation.

Edit to add that people commenting on news articles brought up a good point in that the Americans were in the process of being flown back to the United States when they received the serum and thus were going to be able to be closely monitored and possibly treated for any reactions to the serum. Bringing a non American with ebola into the US is not something that would have probably ever happened.

"While Galileo was a rebel, not all rebels are Galileo." - Norman Levitt, mathematician and critic of anti-science postmodernism

Actually he was never said to be at death's door. Initially he told Drs that his colleague should receive the first available dose since he felt he was young and in better condition to wait. Unfortunately his condition deteriorated and a last minute decision was made to give him the first dose. He did make a comment that he felt he was going to die but he had not entered the hemorrhagic phase of the illness so the serum was administered.

He wasn't revived within an hour, but 22 hours after administration of the initial dose he felt well enough for a shower and shortly after that he began his journey back to the US.

He was also seen exiting the ambulance in Atlanta under his own power but the footage shows that he was indeed unsteady on his feet and he was helped into the hospital by another individual.

Right, that is what I've been saying and what the CNN article I linked earlier said as well.

Until I see some evidence from the people claiming that he had reached the hemorrhagic phase of ebola, this debating over whether or not the serum could have possibly saved him at that point is moot. All accounts have said he was not at that stage yet.

"While Galileo was a rebel, not all rebels are Galileo." - Norman Levitt, mathematician and critic of anti-science postmodernism

The only reason we are even having this discussion is because it appears to have worked. Remember it had never been tested on humans and had only been administered to eight monkeys when they agreed to the treatment. It could have made them worse. It was a risk.

I think this is a damned if we do, damned if we don't situation.

And a doctor is capable of giving truly informed consent to the experiment.